Eli Apple - Got it.

[Stout]

This is shortsighted and flawed thinking. You never draft and count on draft picks to make immediate impacts. That is what free agency in for. The draft is about filling your roster with cheap talent.

No, this line of thinking doesn't work anymore, not with first round picks. Because of FA, and the fact that you can't fill all of your holes there--the good teams don't, anyway--the first year success of first round picks has become crucial to success in the NFL.

Look, I don't like it. I used to rail against the trend, and argued my heart out (hard to believe, right?) when it was pointed out to me years ago. I think it stinks, but I also came to realize the reality of the league as it entered this era. First rounders don't get forever to develop any more; they need to make an immediate impact today. They don't need to be superstars right out of the gate, but they certainly need to be contributors year 1.

 

[Chopper0080]

No, this line of thinking doesn't work anymore, not with first round picks. Because of FA, and the fact that you can't fill all of your holes there--the good teams don't, anyway--the first year success of first round picks has become crucial to success in the NFL.

Look, I don't like it. I used to rail against the trend, and argued my heart out (hard to believe, right?) when it was pointed out to me years ago. I think it stinks, but I also came to realize the reality of the league as it entered this era. First rounders don't get forever to develop any more; they need to make an immediate impact today. They don't need to be superstars right out of the gate, but they certainly need to be contributors year 1.

So are you saying in a sport where the college game is moving further and further from the professional game in terms of style of play, we need to now expect MORE from those players who are drafted in the first round? If so, I don't understand the logic behind that thinking.

If not, and your argument is contribution, what defines an appropriate level of contribution?

I can understand it if you say that we can't take players like Humphries in round 1 who aren't able to dress on gameday, but I don't believe the Cardinals were expecting that either. They realized it quickly once he got into camp, but they never came out of the draft and said Humphries isn't playing this year.

Again, I hate beating a drum for Eli Apple, but if he is able to compete against Justin Bethel for a CB spot, isn't that a pretty good thing for a #29 pick to compete push a 5 year vet for a starting of sub spot?

All I know is that I can't remember a team in the middle or end of the first round have a glaring need after FA, drafting a player for that spot, and then seeing immediate success. The draft is about accumulating cost controlled talent.

 

[Krangodnzr]

The draft is about accumulating cost controlled talent.

KC Joyner wrote an article on ESPN a few years about this. The good teams now avoid free agency mostly, and fill needs in the draft.

Preferably, you draft a guy who doesn't start for a year or two and you let them develop. Once the older higher priced veteran leaves, you now have a young guy to step in. And you then get a compensatory pick for it. Rinse and Repeat.

I would love to find a defensive lineman to replace Calais Campbell. I think keeping Campbell is going to be problematic, since he isn't a top shelf pass rusher and he disappears for stretches at a time. I think he'll get one more big contract and I don't want the Cardinals to give it to him. Pay Chandler Jones and have a young lineman take Campbell's spot.

That's why I would jump all over Vernon Butler if he is available. From the clips I've seen, he has an intriguing blend of size and athleticism to dominate as a 3-4 DE. Pair him with Jones, Campbell, Gunter, Peters, and Golden, and I think this team can get after the QB. Throw in Okafor when you really have to get after the QB.

 

[Stout]

So are you saying in a sport where the college game is moving further and further from the professional game in terms of style of play, we need to now expect MORE from those players who are drafted in the first round? If so, I don't understand the logic behind that thinking.

I know, and I agree, but it's the nature of the beast. Trust me, I argued against it for a looooooong time.

If not, and your argument is contribution, what defines an appropriate level of contribution?

I can understand it if you say that we can't take players like Humphries in round 1 who aren't able to dress on gameday, but I don't believe the Cardinals were expecting that either. They realized it quickly once he got into camp, but they never came out of the draft and said Humphries isn't playing this year.

Again, I hate beating a drum for Eli Apple, but if he is able to compete against Justin Bethel for a CB spot, isn't that a pretty good thing for a #29 pick to compete push a 5 year vet for a starting of sub spot?

A late 1st-round corner pushing a starter for a spot or becoming a 1st-choice player in a lot of sub packages would work for me.

All I know is that I can't remember a team in the middle or end of the first round have a glaring need after FA, drafting a player for that spot, and then seeing immediate success. The draft is about accumulating cost controlled talent.

I agree that the majority of the draft is about accumulating cost-controlled talent. I get what you're saying about filling a glaring need in the draft, and I agree with that to a point. It's the difference between the good teams and the bad. The bad teams have those glaring needs and then 100 percent draft for need in the first. The good teams still have needs, but are in less of a panic mode and are able to pick and choose which ones to fill. This way, they nab the 1st-round talent that CAN contribute.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

I'm just enjoying the fact that the Cards finally have a good enough roster that rookies aren't counted on to come in and play from day 1. At least now, if they are on the field, it's because they have earned it and nothing is handed to them like in the days of Sir Rod.

 

[Cardiac]

I'm just enjoying the fact that the Cards finally have a good enough roster that rookies aren't counted on to come in and play from day 1. At least now, if they are on the field, it's because they have earned it and nothing is handed to them like in the days of Sir Rod.

It is a world of difference, isn't it.

Many of us are having trouble dealing with it because the bust label is being thrown around too easily when players like Minter, Humphries and Niklas don't start right away. Does anyone really believe that these players wouldn't have been starters for the Cards 6 to 30 years ago.